VTechWorks staff will be away for the Thanksgiving holiday beginning at noon on Wednesday, November 27, through Friday, November 29. We will resume normal operations on Monday, December 2. Thank you for your patience.
 

Comparing In Situ and Bulk Constitutive Properties of a Structural Adhesive

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorGrohs, Joshua Walteren
dc.contributor.committeechairWest, Robert L. Jr.en
dc.contributor.committeecochairDillard, David A.en
dc.contributor.committeememberMitchell, Larry D.en
dc.contributor.departmentMechanical Engineeringen
dc.date.accessioned2014-03-14T20:42:58Zen
dc.date.adate2007-08-28en
dc.date.available2014-03-14T20:42:58Zen
dc.date.issued2007-07-20en
dc.date.rdate2010-10-27en
dc.date.sdate2007-08-07en
dc.description.abstractIn the continuing quest for more efficient designs, structural adhesives are being used in place of, or with, traditional fastening methods; however designing with adhesives is refined as traditional methods. To obtain the adhesive design properties, tests are often performed on bulk tensile and bonded shear specimens. Questions remain about the relationship between properties obtained from in situ adhesive joints and bulk adhesive specimens. As a result, an experimental plan was developed which characterized both the linear and nonlinear region of bulk and in situ adhesive performance of a two-part acrylic adhesive from Dow Chemical Company. A standard uniaxial tensile test was used for the bulk normal, while an Iosipescu shear test was used to characterize the bulk shear performance. In situ testing was performed on a napkin-ring specimen loaded in both tension and torsion. Stress-strain relationships in both shear and normal were developed and bulk and in situ adhesive performance was compared. Observations from testing were: 1. Bulk shear and in situ shear tests showed similar performance in both the linear and nonlinear regions. 2. Modulus of elasticity in bulk adhesive tests was similar to the effective modulus of elasticity in in situ tests. 3. Prediction of normal yield strengths of the in situ adhesive through simple failure theory models proved to be inaccurate. Stress singularities, loading imperfections, and potentially a hydrostatic sensitivity were considered possible explanations. 4. Adhesive showed sensitivity to voiding and surface flaws when loaded in a tensile configuration, refinement of specimen fabrication minimized these effects.en
dc.description.degreeMaster of Scienceen
dc.identifier.otheretd-08072007-004210en
dc.identifier.sourceurlhttp://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-08072007-004210/en
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10919/34403en
dc.publisherVirginia Techen
dc.relation.haspartGrohs_Thesis_ETD_Rev2.pdfen
dc.rightsIn Copyrighten
dc.rights.urihttp://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/en
dc.subjectnapkin ringen
dc.subjectbulk adhesiveen
dc.subjectmechanical propertiesen
dc.subjectin situ adhesiveen
dc.subjectconstitutive propertiesen
dc.subjectiosipescu shearen
dc.titleComparing In Situ and Bulk Constitutive Properties of a Structural Adhesiveen
dc.typeThesisen
thesis.degree.disciplineMechanical Engineeringen
thesis.degree.grantorVirginia Polytechnic Institute and State Universityen
thesis.degree.levelmastersen
thesis.degree.nameMaster of Scienceen

Files

Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
Grohs_Thesis_ETD_Rev2.pdf
Size:
4.45 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Download

Collections

Masters Theses